There are three commonly cited ways to identify truth. The
first is God -- but which God, and which divine message, is a
controversial question. Christianity alone features 2,500 different
denominations in the U.S., many of them quite different and opposed
to each other. The second way is individual recognition of the truth
-- but the mere existence of error in history disproves the notion
that individuals have an innate capacity to recognize absolute
truth. The third is scientific consensus, or the general agreement
of our best and brightest minds. This does not eliminate the possibility
of error, of course, but it does reduce it to the smallest degree
possible. The alternative is minority agreement, or the agreement
of our worst and dullest minds, which obviously raises the chances
of error.

Argument

One of the most critical questions that needs to be resolved
in any person's life is how to identify truth. In an imperfect
world, all the ways to identify truth are bound to be imperfect
as well -- even though there is no shortage of charlatans who
claim to have access to Absolute Truth. Many liberals believe
that scientific consensus (or the majority agreement of our brightest
and most educated minds) is the best method, despite its apparent
limitations. Needless to say, many people disagree, for a variety
of reasons.

Some approach the problem of identifying truth by claiming that
God is the source of all truth. But this hardly resolves the problem,
because religion is one of the most disputed topics in the world.
There are some 2,500 different Christian denominations in the
United States alone, all of them with their own unique interpretation
of the Bible, all of them claiming to have the best one. (1) The
most charitable thing, of course, is to acknowledge that these
many different members are sincere in their beliefs. After all,
it is impossible to believe in something that you don't believe
in. But if everyone sincerely believes in a different God and
a different divine message, then we are no closer to knowing which
source of "absolute truth" is the right one than before.

Another common argument is that individuals have the ability to
recognize absolute truth. According to this argument, we all have
an innate capacity to discern between right and wrong, truth and
falsehood. It is when we disobey that inner voice that we become
immoral. But this hardly solves the above problem. First, we should note
that this argument confuses morality for truth. Hindus might feel
that eating meat is immoral, and would feel crushed with guilt
if they did. But it doesn't necessarily follow that their belief
about the animal reincarnation of souls is true. Second, the individual
search for truth has resulted in a galaxy of Christian denominations,
some so contradictory that they call each other the anti-Christ
(as some fundamentalists and Catholics do). And listening to the
arguments raging between liberals and conservatives, you could
scarcely maintain that both did not passionately believe in their
quite different philosophies. Yet at least one of them is wrong
-- proving that individuals who seek the truth are not guaranteed
to find it. An even stronger refutation to this argument is the
mere presence of any scientific error at all
in human history. Unfortunately, individuals have passionately
defended giant errors down through the ages, from slavery to the
flat earth to The Witch Hammer.

So, is there a reasonably reliable source of truth? Yes
but an imperfect and limited one. It is the scientific consensus
of our best and brightest minds, be they theologians, political
scientists, economists, sociologists or whomever has devoted their
careers to the study of these issues. The consensus part
is just as important as the best and brightest part, because
without one, the other is much less valuable.

Consensus is valuable because it means that an argument
is so clear and logical that it has swayed a majority of people's
minds. This is the rationale behind democracy, for example, and
verdict by jury.

The best and brightest are important because merely average
people (no offense intended) make greater errors of logic. Needless
to say, those who study a certain topic should know more about
it than those who don't, and therefore their opinions should be
much more valuable to us. The Founding Fathers accommodated both
of these concerns by making ours a representative democracy, in
which the passage of laws requires a majority vote by our most
educated and literate minds. (Presumably, that is.)

Two things go into the making of our best and brightest. One is
talent, the other education. Again, these traits go hand in hand,
and without one, the other is much less valuable. For example,
the 13th century philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas was
arguably one of the sharpest minds in history. But he was informed
by the teachings of Aristotle, and that is why he proclaimed the
earth to be the center of the universe. Today, even a high-school
dropout knows a truer position of the earth in the solar system,
thanks to the improved education and data of this century. But
high-school dropouts are not capable of Aquinas' level of genius.
The ideal scenario would be to place St. Thomas Aquinas in a modern
university, and watch as he uses current data to make unimaginable
scientific discoveries.

There are, of course, many objections to basing truth on the consensus
of our best and brightest. The history of scientific consensus
is a rather poor one -- for example, it was once a scientific
consensus that the earth is flat. Other famous debacles include
the "ether" of the universe, the medical benefits of
bleeding a patient, and the natural justness of slavery. Furthermore,
almost every great scientific revolution started out as a minority
opinion, and often had to fight the consensus before it became
widely accepted.

These objections, although worthy, are not conclusive arguments
against the value of scientific consensus. Imperfect as it is,
scientific consensus is the best we have. What are the alternatives?
Should the size of the atom be left to the "votes of shop
girls and farm hands," as the famous saying goes? Should
we value minority verdicts over majority verdicts? Should we prefer
the conclusions of our own limited education over the assessments
of geniuses and Nobel-prize winners, whose day jobs are to study
these topics?

Furthermore, minority opinions which are more logical and truthful
than the majority opinion do not stay in the minority for long.
Eventually, these arguments' greater logic will sway an increasing
number of other scientists until they become the prevailing
wisdom.

Finally, as the discoveries have mounted in history, and the scientific
method has improved, famous blunders like the flat earth theory
are becoming less sensational and less frequent. In fact, the
achievements of science are becoming more and more spectacular,
as the Space Age and the Human Genome Project show. Scientific
consensus is becoming more valuable with time.

In the U.S., scientific consensus is forged by the National Academy
of Sciences. This organization promotes two vital instruments
for consensus-building: the scientific conference and the peer-reviewed
journal. In these forums, the nation's best scientists publicize
their theories and allow others to critique them. The debate is
often brutal and extensive. On some issues, consensus remains
elusive as controversies rage on -- but that probably means the
theory is weak, or the evidence itself is conflicting. On other
issues, scientists arrive at a consensus after arguing it out.
The value of the argument phase cannot be overstated -- it weeds
out bias, fraud, error and ideology. What's left is the closest
thing we can call the truth. For example, the academic fights
between liberals and conservatives are notoriously heated. But
this only makes it all the more significant when they finally
agree on an issue. Scientific consensus, especially in this day
and age, is a powerful thing.

The flip side: cranks

In 1952, Martin Gardener published a classic book about
pseudo-science, called In the Name of Science. It was Gardner
who invented the term "crank" to describe the most eccentric
of those who are cut off from the scientific mainstream. Gardner
made two general observations about cranks. First, a crank does
not participate in the usual discourse held by mainstream scholars.
"He does not send his findings to the recognized journals,"
Gardner writes. "He speaks before organizations he himself has
founded, contributes to journals he himself may edit." (2)

The second feature of a crank is the way he challenges scientific
consensus. Admittedly, this is a time-honored tradition in science
-- but the crank does not challenge established science in the
usual educated or reasonable way. Cranks are often angry at the
scientific mainstream for rejecting their unorthodox theories.
Rather than admit that their theories might be flawed, cranks
hurl accusations of basic stupidity and corruption at the entire
scientific community. "Iím right -- the whole world is wrong" is
their credo.

It is important to note that you cannot call your opponents cranks
just because you disagree with them. The National Academy of Sciences
is filled with liberals and conservatives engaged in furious debate.
But on some level they respect each other because they
are highly talented and educated scholars, and they agree on most
of the basics. No, cranks are a much different breed. Their expertise
is such that they often have no idea what they are attacking, even
though they are swaggeringly confident that they alone possess the
truth. They are the novices who enter an established and experienced
chess club and loudly announce, "I am a chess master!"

To Gardnerís observations can be added a third: cranks are usually
not educated in the fields in which they attempt to speak. The field
of economics is perhaps the best example. One would think that the
most qualified economists would be those who had actually studied
the subject and earned their degrees in the field. But there is no
shortage of cranks from other fields who think they know more than
the experts: journalists, lawyers, radio talk-show hosts, politicians,
former football quarterbacks, businessmen, Hollywood movie stars --
you name it, everyone knows more about economics than economists. This
is not to say that one must be formally trained to have expert knowledge
in a field -- informal training can be just as valuable as formal.
But given the abysmal success rate of non-credentialed "experts," the
odds are really quite low.

What are some examples of cranks? One of the best is undoubtedly
"creation scientists." Unfortunately for creationists, about 99
percent of all biologists and geologists believe in evolution.
But creationists have a small organization, called the Institute
for Creation Research, which employs a few dozen scholars in a
two-story building in San Diego, California. The purpose of this
organization is to find scientific proof for the stories of Genesis.
Most of its researchers are not biologists or
geologists at all, but theologians and ministers who are attempting
to pass themselves off as biologists and geologists.

Creation scientists refuse to submit their papers to peer-reviewed
journals or participate in scientific conferences. If they did,
their ignorance of even the most basic data (forget about theories)
would be exposed for what it is. To avoid this, they publish their
arguments in their own books and newsletters, and preach to their
own choirs (in this case, literally!). Their debates with mainstream
scientists are limited to public forums like TV or talk radio. But these
are hardly the same thing as a scientific conference, due to their
extremely limited time formats and the fact that the debaters are
appealing to a lay audience,
not a group of highly trained scientists.

Finally, creation scientists have accused the entire scientific
establishment of corruption -- for example, censoring their work
and denying it a fair hearing in academia. But a three-year study
of 135,000 submissions to scientific journals found that creation
scientists are not even submitting their work. Thus, the scientific
community cannot censor what is not even being submitted.
(3)

Other examples of cranks include supply-side economists (not to
be confused with mainstream conservative economists, who are a
respected species in academia) and Gaia scientists, who claim that
the earth is literally alive.

Conclusion

Some may criticize the value that many scientists place on
consensus, claiming that it sets up an "orthodoxy" to which
all disagreement is "heresy." But scientific orthodoxy is not
dogmatic in the way that many religions are. Change, diversity
and debate are celebrated in science, and there is an established
system that promotes these goals: the peer-reviewed journal and
the scientific conference. The very system is organized to let
opponents meet. In this meritocracy, those with the
best and most convincing arguments rise to the top. Anyone is
free to challenge this orthodoxy at any time. The only requirement
for victory is that you make a better case.